INFANT MEMORY FOR OBJECT MOTION ACROSS A PERIOD OF 3 MONTHS - IMPLICATIONS FOR A 4-PHASE ATTENTION FUNCTION

Citation
Le. Bahrick et Jn. Pickens, INFANT MEMORY FOR OBJECT MOTION ACROSS A PERIOD OF 3 MONTHS - IMPLICATIONS FOR A 4-PHASE ATTENTION FUNCTION, Journal of experimental child psychology, 59(3), 1995, pp. 343-371
Citations number
71
Categorie Soggetti
Psychology, Experimental","Psychology, Developmental
ISSN journal
00220965
Volume
59
Issue
3
Year of publication
1995
Pages
343 - 371
Database
ISI
SICI code
0022-0965(1995)59:3<343:IMFOMA>2.0.ZU;2-1
Abstract
Memory for object motion in 3-month-old infants was investigated acros s retention intervals of 1 or 3 months in three studies using a novelt y preference method. Following familiarization to an object undergoing one of two types of motion, visual preferences for the novel motion w ere assessed after retention intervals of 1 min, 1 day, and 1 month (E xperiment 1, N = 120) and 1 min, 1 day, 2 weeks, and 1 month (Experime nt 2, N = 74). Results of both studies indicated a significant prefere nce for the novel motion at the 1-min delay, a significant preference for the familiar motion at the 1-month delay, and no preferences at th e intermediate retention intervals. In Experiment 3, memory was assess ed after a 3-month interval and again, a significant familiarity prefe rence was obtained. These results demonstrate that memory for object m otion lasts across retention intervals of 1 and 3 months and that nove lty and familiarity preferences interact with retention time. A four-p hase function relating visual preferences and retention time was propo sed. Phase 1, recent memory, is characterized by a novelty preference; phase 2, intermediate memory, is a period of transition characterized by no visual preference; phase 3, remote memory, is characterized by a familiarity preference; and phase 4, inaccessible memory, is also ch aracterized by no preference. The finding of a transition period at in termediate retention times suggests that null preferences should not n ecessarily be taken as evidence of forgetting. Rather, more extended r etention intervals should be included to interpret null findings obtai ned in the novelty preference method. (C) 1995 Academic Press, Inc.